MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 September 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043453

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge be upgraded to an honorable or a general discharge under honorable conditions.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he had only had an 8th grade education.  He was immature and had family problems.  He provides no supporting evidence.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records (only a temporary Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 20, is available) show:

He was born on 17 November 1952.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on           25 March 1971 for training of choice in military occupational specialty (MOS) 68F (Aircraft Electrician).  He scored 40 (category III) on his Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT).  He completed basic combat training.

On 14 June 1971, the applicant waived his enlistment commitment due to excessive backlog of classes (this may have been an academic/lack of comprehension reason) and accepted alternate training in MOS 67Y (Helicopter Repairman).  He apparently was released from this training for academic reasons, also. 

On 26 October 1971, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

On 2 November 1971, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.

The applicant apparently was then sent to Fort Sill, OK for training in field artillery.  At some point he returned home to marry his 16-year old pregnant girlfriend.  On an unknown date he was assigned to Germany.

At some point the applicant apparently applied for a compassionate reassignment which was denied.  He apparently returned home on emergency leave and did not return.

On 31 August 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being absent without leave (AWOL) for the period 7 June through 5 August 1972.

On 5 September 1972, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation      635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he requested to know if it would be possible to receive a general discharge for he was planning to return to the Army after he solved his financial and marital problems.  
The appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive an Undesirable Discharge Certificate (a discharge UOTHC).

On 14 September 1972, the applicant departed AWOL.

On 20 September 1972, the applicant was discharged with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He was sent constructive notice of his discharge as he was still in an AWOL status.  He had completed 1 year,              3 months and 20 days of creditable active service and had 66 days of lost time. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

On 22 January 1990, the Army Discharge Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant served for about 15 months prior to going AWOL and knew what the Army’s requirements were as far as discipline was concerned.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__hof___  __jpi___  __rks___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043453	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000919	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19720920	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.